Modesty Vs. Morality

[Ellenita]

I was always taught when I was young that we had to wear 'Sunday best' for church so it was a bit of a shock recently when my friend, who is catholic but who has only just started going to Mass again after many years, turned up wearing trainers on her feet - it seemed disrespectful to me to not be wearing 'proper' shoes.....but then I realised how silly I was being because actually the most important thing is that she goes to Mass!

It's what's in your heart that counts isn't it?




















I still can't wear trainers myself though...... :ph34r:

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Dave' date='Apr 19 2004, 11:17 PM'] He apparently thinks that women who wear bikinis automatically do it to make guys lust after them. But that's very judgmental. Granted, it may not always be wise to wear bikinis, but it would only be a mortal sin if a girl knew it would make the guys lust after her. [/quote]
You are confusing the issue. It is wrong to wear a bikini in public, pure and simple. If the woman doesn't know that, she may not be culpable but that does not mean the act itself is ok. She is simply ignorant (and therefore does not possess the full consent of the will necessary to commit a mortal sin) of the gravity of the situation.

If it is ok to wear a bikini in public, then it's ok for a girl to wear nothing but bra and panties in public. There is no difference.

It is not being judgmental to condemn a certain act as being mortally sinful. We do this for any number of sins (fornication, contraception, abortion) even though it is entirely possible that a person could engage in one of those acts without being culpable of mortal sin. Crusader did not judge any individual person, but rather the act itself. This is a perfectly legitmate thing to do.

[Dave]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Apr 20 2004, 07:23 AM'] You are confusing the issue. It is wrong to wear a bikini in public, pure and simple. If the woman doesn't know that, she may not be culpable but that does not mean the act itself is ok. She is simply ignorant (and therefore does not possess the full consent of the will necessary to commit a mortal sin) of the gravity of the situation.

[/quote]
Then tell me where the Church teaches it's wrong to wear bikinis. Where does it come out and say, "Wearing bikinis is a sin!"?

[quote]It is not being judgmental to condemn a certain act as being mortally sinful.  We do this for any number of sins (fornication, contraception, abortion) even though it is entirely possible that a person could engage in one of those acts without being culpable of mortal sin.  Crusader did not judge any individual person, but rather the act itself.  This is a perfectly legitmate thing to do.[/quote]

You're not telling me anything I don't already know. However, the Church does NOT have a teaching on wearing bikinis. Simple as that. So it's judgmental to say that those who wear them are guilty of sin.

And as for a girl wearing a bikini in public, it depends on the place. Walking down the street, no. At the beach, yes. Besides, everybody at the beach is dressed like that, so I'd say there's a good chance guys there would be desensitized to what women wear, as they're used to it. However, guys walking down the street would surely NOT be desensitized to a girl wearing a bikini, as that's just not something you normally see.

[popestpiusx]

Did you think about that before you wrote it, Dave? Give it a second look and see if you can't pick out five or six glaring holes in your argument. I'll respond later.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='pinstripes' date='Apr 19 2004, 05:31 PM'] in a conversation between myself and a girl i've met at school who's from europe, we've noticed that some people have a warped sense of what it is to be modest or rather, what it is to be modest and why it is important.

from what i gather, her norm for modesty isn't even close to what most people would consider modest at my school. many girls wear dresses to their ankle, shirts to their wrists and neck, etc. she looks at these girls like they aren't happy with their bodies and act like they are covering up bad things. i find it interesting because to her, the body is beautiful no matter what, due to her cultural upbringing. a nude beach is not any big deal because no one taught her to think of one as sinful. here though, nude beaches are associated with immorality, and lust, among other things.

i attend a conservative [url="http://www.udallas.edu"]Catholic School[/url] where modesty is portraied almost as if our bodies aren't ment to be seen by anyone other than ourselves, God, and our spouse if we ever have one. I'm pretty sure that the girl i was speaking with said that modesty where she's from is more along the lines of your behavior with your body (i.e. if you go to a topless beach to lay out in the sun or swim, its different than going there because you can be naked and see other people naked).

do you think that our culture (united states/north america) has a distorted image of the human body and ways of being modest, or do other cultures have a better attitude when it comes to this? [/quote]
Our nakedness should be covered.

Our nakedness should only be viewed by our spouse. Not even by those of the same sex.

What makes something right or wrong (good or bad) is God, not society.

The God has taught, as we see in Scripture the above.

Society is not modest.

The body is beautiful, but it should not be viewed by everyone. We all know what a body looks like.

Exposing ourselves makes us an occassion to sin, who wants to be a stumbling block for someone? I don't.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[marielapin]

First of all, let me say the only time in my life I have worn a bikini was when I was about 5 years old and my mom dressed me in one (I guess now its considered a two piece suit b/c bikinis are much smaller). Bikinis are highly uncomfortable, I really don't know why people wear them. I really disliked the one my mom made for me.

BUT, I don't think its fair to say that wearing one is always a mortal sin. For a sin to be mortal, there must be three things met 1-grave matter 2-knowledge of that grave matter 3-full consent to go ahead with the sin.

There are plenty of girls out there that do not know what wearing such things does to others, and this is very true whether you believe me or not. My mom confided in me once that she did not know that the fashions of the time made men lust until they started taking her clothes off on a date. So after she came to this revelation, she started taking more care in the clothes she wore. She did not purposefully wear these clothes which are considered against modisty. Did she commit a mortal sin beforehand? Not according to what is the three conditions are for it to be a mortal sin. Would it have been if she did it afterward? Probably yes. Was it a mortal sin when I was dressed in a "bikini" at age 5? Give me a break!

As a side note, I have been very pleased to see the number of more modest bathing suits on the market now....because even a one piece, depending on how it is cut, can be more alluring and can show more than a bikini.

[Lil Red]

not to be a pest here, but i'm confused.

For example. When we say that in Lifeteen Masses there are all these abuses going on, and we say that it's not a matter of what the GIRM includes, but what it doesn't say (hand holding, altar gather, etc.) to include. Does that make sense?

Yet, on this modesty issue (which I don't know if I agree with or not), we say, "Show us where it says that. Show us where the Church teaches that. Show us what Pope said it."

I'm confused.

[pinstripes]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Apr 20 2004, 09:47 AM'] Our nakedness should be covered.

Our nakedness should only be viewed by our spouse. Not even by those of the same sex.

What makes something right or wrong (good or bad) is God, not society.

The God has taught, as we see in Scripture the above.

Society is not modest.

The body is beautiful, but it should not be viewed by everyone. We all know what a body looks like.

Exposing ourselves makes us an occassion to sin, who wants to be a stumbling block for someone? I don't.


God Bless,
ironmonk [/quote]
should you wear a baithing suit when showering in the gym w/ others of the same sex?

it really never was so until recent times, go ask a grandparent.




for that matter...
the idea of a 'baithing suit' is entirely a new concept in the span of human existance.

i speculate that if Jesus and the apostles ever took a dip in the jordan river on a hot day in the desert, they weren't all hung up about their lack of proper baithing atire, or jump in tunic-and-all.

Edited April 20, 2004 by pinstripes

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='marielapin' date='Apr 20 2004, 11:09 AM'] BUT, I don't think its fair to say that wearing one is always a mortal sin. For a sin to be mortal, there must be three things met 1-grave matter 2-knowledge of that grave matter 3-full consent to go ahead with the sin.

[/quote]
This point has already been clarified above. Ignorance may remove culpability but it does not change the fact that the act itself is objectively still a mortal sin. Now, the case of the five year old is entirely different as five year olds have not yet reached the age of reason and are never (or rarely) culpable for anything they do.

[marielapin]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Apr 20 2004, 11:17 AM'] This point has already been clarified above.  Ignorance may remove culpability but it does not change the fact that the act itself is objectively still a mortal sin.  Now, the case of the five year old is entirely different as five year olds have not yet reached the age of reason and are never (or rarely) culpable for anything they do. [/quote]
If you are going to say wearing bikinis are an objectively mortal sin, don't forget to leave out:

all high cut and low cut one piece suits
all halter tops
all tight blue jeans
all short shorts
all low cut shirts
anything see through
short skirts
running shorts
sports bras
speedos
etc


Lets just be fair about this.

And even though I agree with you that people should not be wearing such clothes, I am still yet to find something that states that the act of wearing these clothes in and of themselves is objectively mortal.

I have read plenty of examination of consciences that state that dressing in this way intentionally is objectively mortal.

[EDIT] I have also seen the phrase "flagrant immorality in dress" as well, but have never seen what is considered such. I am just trying to get a good hold on what is considered "flagrant". It could be anything depending on your outlook. For instance, I have seen many one pieces that could be considered "flagrant" because they are more revealing and look more like lingerie than just a plain bikini. But not all bikinis I have seen I would consider "flagrant", because some are more modest in the parts they cover (i.e. the boy shorts, the longer tanks, etc) than most bathing suits.

[marielapin]

Also, for women, you have to take into account body type. For example, if you are a stove pipe, you can wear certain shirts, bathing suits that look just fine. But if you put that same suit or article of clothing on someone more....well rounded, it looks lewd.

This is the point I'm trying to make.

Maybe you are just talking about string bikinis with three triangles of cloth connected by strings. If this is the case, then I agree with you....it is always sinful. But for any other type of bathing suit, it depends on the suit and how it looks (fits) on the person.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Dave' date='Apr 20 2004, 09:58 AM'] Then tell me where the Church teaches it's wrong to wear bikinis. Where does it come out and say, "Wearing bikinis is a sin!"?



You're not telling me anything I don't already know. However, the Church does NOT have a teaching on wearing bikinis. Simple as that. So it's judgmental to say that those who wear them are guilty of sin.

And as for a girl wearing a bikini in public, it depends on the place. Walking down the street, no. At the beach, yes. Besides, everybody at the beach is dressed like that, so I'd say there's a good chance guys there would be desensitized to what women wear, as they're used to it. However, guys walking down the street would surely NOT be desensitized to a girl wearing a bikini, as that's just not something you normally see. [/quote]
To the first part:
The Church does not need to mention bikinis specifically. She does not operate this way. She establishes general norms, which can be applied to numerous situations or specific instances. So in this case the Church condemns revealing clothing. The bikini is about the single most revealing piece of clothing in existence. The only thing more revealing would simply be to get naked. The does not, nor could not, spend the time that would be necessary to make a list of everything that falls under a certain species of sin. Immodesty is a sin. Immodesty is defined as such and such. Anything that meets such and such a definition is immodest and therefore sinful. Consider another example. Sexual acts not ordered (or open to) procreation are condemned. Those kinds of sexual acts are homosexuality, bestiality, etc. etc. Any act that falls under any of these is a sin. According to your logic, Dave, I could say "the Church doesn't say that having sex with frogs is a sin so it must be ok." No, having sex with frogs falls under bestiality and is therefore condemned. In a like manner, bikini's are, by definition, revealing clothing. The Church condemns revealing clothing, ergo, the Church condemns bikinis.

By the way, you never answered my question. Do you think there is anything wrong with women walking about (even on the beach) in bra and panties?

Now, to address a couple other points in your post:

Given what I said above concerning the Church's attitude toward immodesty, it is not "being judgmental" in a negative way to say that wearing a bikini (in public) is a sin (which is different from saying that those who wear them are guilty of sin).

It is your last paragraph that is the most troubling and problematic, both from a moral standpoint and from logic as well. So we'll go sentence by sentence.

1)"And as for a girl wearing a bikini in public, it depends on the place."
This doesn't work. The "place" is "in public". Anything beyond that is irrelevant. A bikini has no place "in public".

2)"Walking down the street, no. At the beach, yes."
What's the difference? The same people can go to both freely. And often times there is little distinction. For instance, at Myrtle Beach the street where everyone walks is about 30 feet away from the beach. And the Beach can be seen from the street. What's the difference?

3)"Besides, everybody at the beach is dressed like that, so I'd say there's a good chance guys there would be desensitized to what women wear, as they're used to it."
WOW! That's quite the statement. So wearing a bikini is ok because first, everyone is doing it and second, people are desensitized to it. My question is first of all since when does the fact that everyone is doing something provide a moral defense of that action. And secondly, desensitized to what? It seems you are implicitly acknowledging that it is immodest (else, there would be nothing to be desensitized to).

4)"However, guys walking down the street would surely NOT be desensitized to a girl wearing a bikini, as that's just not something you normally see."
You say "surely"? How can you be so sure? This sentence does not work for the same reasons I gave for number 2.

Dave, you'll have to do better than that if you hope to defend the moral licitness of bikini wearing.

[p0lar_bear]

This doesn't exactly fit in with the discussion on bikinis but...

Modesty is in a way socially or culturally conditioned. For example, a Discovery Channel show on some tribe in Africa showing topless women isn't considered lewd or pornographic, but a show showing European women topless would be considered pornographic. We recognize a difference between the two (or at least most people do). The tribal women aren't really considered as being immodest, but European women (or women from any developed culture) would be.

The same thing would apply to what men wear in many tribes. Most people would call the police if they saw a man walking down Main Street, USA just wearing a butt flap (for lack of a better term), but we don't consider it lewd in a tribal culture.

Edited April 20, 2004 by p0lar_bear

[Dave]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Apr 20 2004, 12:01 PM'] To the first part:
The Church does not need to mention bikinis specifically.  She does not operate this way.  She establishes general norms, which can be applied to numerous situations or specific instances.  So in this case the Church condemns revealing clothing.  The bikini is about the single most revealing piece of clothing in existence.  The only thing more revealing would simply be to get naked.  The does not, nor could not, spend the time that would be necessary to make a list of everything that falls under a certain species of sin.  Immodesty is a sin.  Immodesty is defined as such and such.  Anything that meets such and such a definition is immodest and therefore sinful.  Consider another example.  Sexual acts not ordered (or open to) procreation are condemned.  Those kinds of sexual acts are homosexuality, bestiality, etc. etc.  Any act that falls under any of these is a sin.  According to your logic, Dave, I could say "the Church doesn't say that having sex with frogs is a sin so it must be ok." No, having sex with frogs falls under bestiality and is therefore condemned.  In a like manner, bikini's are, by definition, revealing clothing.  The Church condemns revealing clothing, ergo, the Church condemns bikinis. 




[/quote]
The Church condemns [b]immodesty[/b]. Society's norms of what would be immodest have changed greatly over the years. It used to be that showing your ankles was considered immodest. However, I agree that some things will always be immodest no matter what the social norms are.

The Church has NEVER made a specific, definitive list of what would be considered immodest, however. It would depend on who it was and what was worn. There are things that would make any guy lust, and there are things that would make only some guys lust. So if a girl wore a long skirt, and such a guy got aroused, then having a long skirt would be immodest at least around him.

[quote]By the way, you never answered my question.  Do you think there is anything wrong with women walking about (even on the beach) in bra and panties?[/quote]

I think your question is moot. I NEVER said I liked the idea of women wearing bikinis. All I said is that I don't believe to do so is automatically a mortal sin. It's all in the intent.

[quote]Now, to address a couple other points in your post:

Given what I said above concerning the Church's attitude toward immodesty, it is not "being judgmental" in a negative way to say that wearing a bikini (in public) is a sin (which is different from saying that those who wear them are guilty of sin).[/quote]

I repeat, it's all in the intent. That doesn't mean that it's prudent to wear bikinis in public, though.

[quote]It is your last paragraph that is the most troubling and problematic, both from a moral standpoint and from logic as well.  So we'll go sentence by sentence.

1)"And as for a girl wearing a bikini in public, it depends on the place." 
This doesn't work.  The "place" is "in public".  Anything beyond that is irrelevant.  A bikini has no place "in public".

2)"Walking down the street, no.  At the beach, yes."
What's the difference? The same people can go to both freely.  And often times there is little distinction.  For instance, at Myrtle Beach the street where everyone walks is about 30 feet away from the beach.  And the Beach can be seen from the street.  What's the difference?

3)"Besides, everybody at the beach is dressed like that, so I'd say there's a good chance guys there would be desensitized to what women wear, as they're used to it."
WOW!  That's quite the statement.  So wearing a bikini is ok because first, everyone is doing it and second, people are desensitized to it.  My question is first of all since when does the fact that everyone is doing something provide a moral defense of that action.  And secondly, desensitized to what?  It seems you are implicitly acknowledging that it is immodest (else, there would be nothing to be desensitized to).

4)"However, guys walking down the street would surely NOT be desensitized to a girl wearing a bikini, as that's just not something you normally see."
You say "surely"? How can you be so sure?  This sentence does not work for the same reasons I gave for number 2. 

Dave, you'll have to do better than that if you hope to defend the moral licitness of bikini wearing.[/quote]

I NEVER said that it's morally ok just because everyone else is doing it! Rather, I'm speaking from my own experience. Maybe it's different for others, but I for one find it easy not to lust after women at the beach because women tend to dress skimpily anyway there. It's expected, right or wrong. So I subconsciously get my guard up.

Besides, I'm not talking about Myrtle Beach here.

Anyway, if I saw a girl in a bikini at the mall, a place where I would NOT expect to see that sort of thing, naturally it would be at a time where my guard would be down.

You put words into my mouth that I didn't say, and you assigned meanings to what I said that that they didn't mean. Please read what I say carefully. I never said that wearing bikinis in and of itself is morally ok. But it's the INTENTION that determines whether they're guilty of sin or not. I can't emphasize that enough.

Edited April 20, 2004 by Dave

[CreepyCrawler]

[quote name='p0lar_bear' date='Apr 20 2004, 12:05 PM'] The tribal women aren't really considered as being immodest, but European women (or women from any developed culture) would be.

[/quote]
I don't mean to be a jerk, but maybe you meant to say "western culture" or "a culture where exposed body parts are not the norm" and not "developed culture" -- even people who live in jungles have a developed culture, it's just not western.

now, back to the bikini debate!